On 03/16/2016 03:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen:
>> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel
>> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and
>> that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or not)
>> ideas around the topic.
>
> I think the consensus is to avoid new kernel module,
> but allow them in a staging directory while being discussed upstream.
To me the more interesting question is: what happens after that?
As in, if upstream says no, does it mean axe from dpdk, no ifs and buts?
If accepted upstream, does a version of the module still live within
dpdk codebase (for example to provide the version for older kernel
versions, I dont see that as unreasonable at all)?
> About the existing out-of-tree kernel modules, we must continue trying
> to obsolete them with upstream work.
Agreed.
>
> If you feel the consensus must be clearly stated and acked,
> please send a patch for doc/guides/contributing/design.rst.
I'll be happy to, once we have a clear consensus on what the policy
actually is.
- Panu -
